06G220D

I just saw this in the Honest John motoring advice section of todays Telegraph. Q. "I took delivery of a new Audi A4 Avant 2.0 TDI 143 manual in August and having now covered more than 5,000 miles I am disappointed with the fuel economy. My previous A4 always returned at least 50mpg. The new model seems reluctant to deliver 40mpg. Audi says that I should be getting 52.3mpg Combined, but I have also read that the particulates burner uses more fuel. Logic would surely suggest that lower emissions figures should not be achieved at the cost of poorer fuel efficiency." M.H., Bingham A. The diesel particulate filter (DPF) will use more fuel, particularly if you fill with cheap diesel rather than super diesel such as BP Ultimate, and particularly if you drive at low revs for economy. Most of all, you'll use a lot more fuel if you do a lot of short runs from cold and town running. You might find that increasing your motorway speed, perhaps from 65mph to 70mph, has a beneficial effect because the engine will not then have to over-fuel to burn off the particulates in the DPF.

I just had a look at what "Honest John" has to say on running in a diesel. Honest John has a column in the Telegraph on Saturdays and has his own website also. This is his advice on running in a diesel. 16. RUNNING IN A DIESEL: What's the best way to run-in a diesel engine? Leave factory fill of oil for the first year or 10,000 miles. For the first 1,000 miles do not exceed 3,000rpm, but make sure you reach 3,000rpm regularly. For the next 1,000 miles (to 2,000 miles) do not exceed 3,500rpm, but make sure you reach 3,500rpm regularly. For the next 1,000 miles (to 3,000 miles) do not exceed 4,000rpm, but make sure you reach 4,000rpm regularly. For the next 1,000 miles (to 4,000 miles) do not exceed 4,500rpm, but make sure you reach 4,500rpm at least a couple of times a week. After that, no limit, but make sure you continue to hit 4,500rpm through the gears several times a week. The benefit of this is it helps to self clean the injectors, it blows any accumulated soot out of the exhaust system and it helps to free off the piston rings, making the engine more efficient and less likely to use engine oil. What I find interesting in this is the advice to hit the 4,500 rpm several times a week. It sounds like this could reduce the sooting up problem that relates to the egr. I know that about one year ago one of the engineers in the Lexus Service station gave me similar advice. He advised me to make sure I gave the car a run at least once a week that would have the engine good and hot and would have high revs to clean out the emissions.

Telling people how bad they are, once or twice, yes you have the right to do that. Ramming your opinions down other people's throat ad nauseum - that's just sour grapes. Do you feel you didn't make your point well enough, the first time or the second time or even the tenth time? You're right, its not called the Lexus Fan Club. It's actually called the Lexus Owner's Club. What should that tell us? That we can expect to get detailed reviews on the Volvo S80 and the BMW 525d ad infinitum? I don't think so.

I have been wondering should we change the name of the forum to the Lexus Owners and non-Owners Club. By the way, does anyone remember Waldorf and Statler from the muppets. From Wikipedia - "They are two ornery, cantankarous old men who first appeared in the television series The Muppet Show heckling the rest of the cast from their balcony seats. .....Despite constantly complaining about the show and how terrible some acts were, they would always be back the following week in the best seats in the house.!" Don't know why I thought of them!

That was not the point. If you are going to make a decison to purchase a car based on economy then you need to be sure that you are considering all the relevant costs and not just some of the costs. The formula for cost of ownership deals with this all of your points. If you spec it up and there no resale value - your residual value is lower. Servicing costs would fall into operating expenses. VED Bill would also fall into operating expenses. The effect on resale value would be picked up in residual value. If you calculate the cost of ownership correctly, then the mileage covered during the period of ownership and the fuel consumed will be correctly factored into the calculation. The cost of ownership model works and is used by fleet buyers and other buyers of equipment etc. So if you want to compare two cars, then calculate your cost of ownership for each and compare them. All the factors you raise will be dealt with appropriately. My original point was that if you focus on the fuel economy alone, you could make a big mistake.

The true measure of economy is to use the Cost of Ownership i.e initial cost plus running expenses less residual cost, all discounted for time value of money. I haven't done any calculations - I am happy with my cars overall performance - but when I consider the price bmw were asking for the 320d, I would be shocked if the is220d did not turn out to have lowest cost of ownership. The point has been made here often enough but if you calculate out the extra diesel cost, it still does not outweigh the difference in purchase price.

Hi, Does your car have the 3 year Roadside Assistance service. It is standard here in Ireland so I assume it is standard where you are. If it has call them, they should come out and do whatever diagnosis is necessary. It sounds like the battery might just be flat but they will sort it out. Hope this helps.

Interesting comments in Honest John's column today in the Telegraph. He was asked how a diesel engine would be affected by irregular use i.e. left idle for several weeks with lots of short runs. He answered "Diesel fuel has some lubricity, so cold starts are less damaging. That said, diesels take twice as long to reach operating temperature and so need to be run at least five to six miles from a cold start. As well as that, new emissions equipment, such as self-cleaning particulate filters, require vehicles to be run regularly at reasonable engine speeds to achieve the necessary temperatures. The more technology diesels receive, the more troublesome they are proving to be. Diesels tend to cost a lot more to repairs than their petrol counterparts, which negates any fuel economy benefit." I thought the comment about more trouble with more technology particularly interesting. His comments were not limited to specific marques.

I know this point has been made before but I think it's worth repeating. If you want to compare cars from an economical point of view you need to look at the full cost of ownership. To do this you look at upfront purchase cost less value on disposal (you will probably have to estimate this) plus operating costs i.e. fuel, maintenance, tyres, roadtax and insurance etc Looking at fuel in isolation gives a misleading picture as it ignores differences in the other areas which, as we know, are significant.

Actually, I was saying that knowing that the car should be run on Low Sulphur Diesel is basic. You don't even have to read the owner's handbook. To highlight the importance of using the correct diesel there is a bright red high visibility sticker inside the filler cap. I understand that reading the Owner's Handbook is not anyones favourite pastime. However, you should bear in mind that failure to maintain the car in accordance with the owner's handbook can invalidate the warranty. If you are having trouble with the car and likely to be invoking the warranty, then you really should make sure you are doing everything that the handbook advises.

ppm is parts per million. Its a standard abbreviation and a google would have found the answer in an instant. As to which fuels comply and which don't. Actually, my note on Low Sulphur fuel explained that since 2005 all diesel sold in UK should be compliant. It said - "Similar measures have been enacted in most of the Nordic countries, Benelux, Ireland and the United Kingdom to encourage early adoption of the 50 ppm and 10 ppm fuel standards." On that basis I don't believe Sulphur is an issue. As regards why Lexus didn't "design a car that was fit for purpose, would work with normal fuels". Why do you automatically assume Lexus have done something wrong. Low Sulphur Diesel is normal fuel. They did tell you that you could only use Low Suphur Diesel. If you did not read the Owner's Handbook I don't understand why you think that is the fault of Lexus. You are making very heavy weather of something fairly basic. I know, I know - I am probably foolish trying to introduce some actual facts into this thread.

Lexus have, in fact, specified the Sulphur Content. My Owner's Manual states that the diesel must "contain 50ppm or less of suphur." Fuel Specifications, p. 375. This specification is also given under Refuelling on p49. By the way, low suphur diesel is 50ppm or less of sulphur, while Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel is 10ppm or less. From Wikipedia At the European Union level, the “Euro IV” standard applies since 2005, which specifies 50 ppm maximum quantity of sulfur in diesel fuel for most highway vehicles[1]; ultra-low sulfur diesel with a maximum of 10 ppm of sulfur must “be available” from 2005 and is actually widely available. A final target (to be confirmed by the European Commission) of 2009 for the final reduction of sulfur to 10 ppm, which will be considered the entry into force of the Euro V fuel standard. In 2009, diesel fuel for most non-highway applications is also expected to conform to the Euro V standard for fuel. Various exceptions exist for certain uses and applications, most of which are being phased out over a period of several years. In particular, the so-called EU accession countries (primarily in Eastern Europe), have been granted certain temporary exemptions to allow for transition. Certain EU countries may apply higher standards or require faster transition.[2] For example, Germany implemented a tax incentive of €0.015 per litre of "sulphur free" fuel (both gasoline and diesel) containing less than 10 ppm beginning in January, 2003 and average sulphur content was estimated in 2006 to be 3-5 ppm. Similar measures have been enacted in most of the Nordic countries, Benelux, Ireland and the United Kingdom to encourage early adoption of the 50 ppm and 10 ppm fuel standards.[3 I'm not sure if EU rules apply in the real world!

The mentions of low suphur diesel as an issue has me wondering if that could be the reason why some owners are getting such poor economy. However for several reasons I would be very surprised if this is the root cause of the problem. Firstly, I am sure Lexus can tell which diesel is being used and could have identified that themselves fairly easily. Secondly, they know and have advised that the car should only be run on low suphur diesel, so they have "an out" if the low suphour diesel is the culprit. For example, if someone damaged a petrol car by putting in diesel the liability would fall on the owner/user. Why then would Lexus accept liability if IS220D owners aren't following the operating instructions. It was clearly stated in the handbook and the fuel filler cap also has a prominent sign - all advising low suphur diesel. So for that reason I think it most unlikely that wrong diesel is the issue. Thirdly, before I bought my previous car, an avensis 2.0 d4d I enquired about getting the newer d-cat engine advertised in the UK but it was not available in Ireland at that time because low suphur diesel was not widely available then. My understanding is that the d4d engine is not as clean as the d-cat (Diesel Clean Advanced Technology) which can only run on low-sulphur diesel. It would be amazing if low suphur diesel is now less widely available in UK than it was 4 years ago. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

I am getting 38-42mpg consistently on my usual mix of driving. Better on long runs obviously. So I am getting what I expected and I am happy. Interesting comment elsewhere about low sulphur diesel. The manual recommended to only use low sulphur diesel and, on buying the car, I checked to see which brands in Ireland are low suphur. The answer I got is that they are all low sulphur now. As I have posted before, but it seems to need repeating for some readers, I feel, that over time, this forum became biased toward negative comment. Does the heading on this thread, "Are they really that bad?". not support that interpretation. Why would someone post a thread like that if that was not the message the forum is conveying to them? And don't they have the right to know that there are many happy is220d owners out there? Let them make their decision using heir own success criteria and all the facts, not just a selection of the facts. And finally, what offends me is being repeatedly told that my experiences are not valid or being told that I don't live in the "real world."

As I have already posted - sample size is too small responding population is biased Poll organiser invited responses from persons with negative experiences Poll organsiser not interested in others experiences - posted "can only go on my own experience" Poll results not mirrored elsewhere There's plenty of information out there about getting representative samples for surveys. It's not rocket science just Statistics 101.